Establishes the "keep effective and excellent professionals in the classroom act"; relates to procedures for the abolition of teaching positions; repealers

Summary of provisions

Section 1: Short Title "The Keep Effective and Excellent Professionals in the Classroom Act".

Section 2: Amends Section 2588 of the Education Law regarding the abolition of positions to include city school districts of cities with one million people or more.

Section 3: Repeals section 2588 (3) of the Education Law and adds a new subdivision 3. Provides that a school principal shall make decisions concerning which staff and positions are to be abolished after considering the recommendations of a school-based committee. Such committee shall be comprised of administrators, teachers and parents. Specifies the factors to be considered when determining which positions and staff shall be abolished. Establishes guidelines for the continuation and termination of employment for certain positions.

Section 4: Repeals Section 2588 (4) of the Education Law and adds a new subdivision 4. Establishes procedures regarding the filling of vacancies.

Section 5: Repeals Section 2588 (7) of the Education Law.

Section 6: Amends section 3013 of the Education Law. Exempts teaching or supervisory positions in city school districts in cities with one million inhabitants or more.

Section 7: Effective Date

Justification

Currently, whenever school districts eliminate positions, state law requires that the newest teachers in the entire district be the first fired. Because layoffs must be made without regard to teacher quality and based solely on seniority, school districts facing serious budget cuts could lose an entire generation of new teachers. It is well-documented that teacher quality is paramount when it comes to student achievement, and the existing statute means that great educators may be lost while ineffective teachers are retained.

Moreover, because new teachers have the lowest salaries in the system, the current requirements mean that more teachers have to be eliminated to meet the same budget reduction targets than if layoffs were determined on merit and the salaries of excessed teachers reflected the general distribution of teacher salaries. Layoffs made under the existing statute would create unnecessarily high spikes in class sizes and student-teacher ratios, issues that have been a longstanding priority for the Legislature.

The "last hired, first fired" requirement for large cities particularly creates substantial disparities between communities, with those that have a preponderance of new teachers forced to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of layoffs. In New York City, where as many as 8,500 teaching positions may be eliminated, Community School District 7 in the South Bronx and District 2 in Manhattan stand to lose 21% and 19%, respectively, of their teaching personnel, while District 31 in Staten Island would lose just 5%. Three out of five of the New York City community school districts facing the highest percentage of layoffs are in the South Bronx.

Additionally, the last hired, first fired requirement, because it applies to the City as a whole, makes it virtually impossible for individual schools to eliminate positions due to enrollment decreases, or for schools to be closed for academic failure, without engaging in "bumping" throughout the system. This game of musical chairs would displace teachers in schools across the City.

To avoid this operational chaos, the City of New York maintains an "Absent Teacher Reserve," in which teachers whose positions are eliminated because of excessing in individual schools continue to receive full salaries and benefits indefinitely, regardless of whether they find a new, permanent teaching assignment. (This is distinct from the "rubber room," for teachers removed for incompetence or malfeasance.) While most of these teachers do find a new assignment in short order, Some remain in the ATR pool for more than a year, either unable or Unmotivated to find a new position. As a result, the City of New York currently spends more than $110 million annually on salaries and benefits for teachers in the ATR pool. This is unacceptable in the current fiscal climate and particularly objectionable at a time when active, effective teachers face layoffs.

The proposed legislation would, in instances of citywide teacher layoffs in cities with populations over 1,000,000, allow layoffs to be made at a consistent rate across all communities and schools and would enable principals, in conjunction with committees of teachers, parents and administrators, to determine which positions to eliminate. Such determinations would be based on school needs for particular license areas and, when more than one person holds a position within the same license area, on the following criteria: significant relevant contributions accomplishments, or performance; relevant supplemental professional experiences as demonstrated on the job; office o~ school needs including curriculum specialized education, degrees, licenses or areas of expertise; and length of satisfactory service.

The legislation would enable schools and communities to share the burden of layoffs equally, and ensure that the most effective teachers and those in shortage subject areas would be retained. In such a scenario, teachers without assignments could be excessed before teachers in schools, depending on the determination of the chancellor.

The legislation would also put a one-year cap on guaranteed salary and benefits for teachers who lose their positions due to school-based excessing or school closures. The proposal mirrors a policy instituted by Chicago under the leadership of Arne Duncan, the current U.S. Secretary of Education. This would still enable teachers to receive a full year of undiminished compensation, while creating a greater incentive for teachers to find new assignments and substantially reducing the fiscal burden on the city school district.

The Center of American Progress, a progressive, Washington-based think tank, recently wrote: "These stakes are particularly high for disadvantaged students, who depend far more on educators to teach them what they need to know. Some researchers have found that if a low income student has a highly effective teacher for three years in a row, the student can perform just as well as middle-class peers. This can potentially erase the achievement gap between these groups." This legislation would make state law consistent with the objective of ensuring all that students have access to high-quality teachers.

Legislative history

2010: S.7346 - Referred to Education/A.10482A - Referred to Education

Fiscal implications

None to State.

Effective date

Immediately.